ExtortionLetterInfo Forums
ELI Forums => Getty Images Letter Forum => Topic started by: joee on November 29, 2012, 04:31:37 PM
-
I just received our Notice of Copyright Infringement from Masterfile on Monday. I am reading the forums on where to even begin with all of this.
Our company blog was linked to another blog who used the image. Not sure if we copied the image from their blog and uploaded it or it somehow came up when linking the blogs. I am not a "blog master" at this point by any means.
Masterfile is demanding $2540 for the retroactive use of this one image since Sept 19, 2012. When I phoned Masterfile, I spoke with Geoffrey Beal Copyright Compliance Officer ext 2276 who informed me that I have to pay up even though I removed the image from my blog. (I also remove the image from m blog media library) I told him that I can not afford this kind of fee and that I felt it was excessive. He then said for me to send in my P&L statements and other personal info to him, so that he could arrange a possible payment plan of $250 a month for 3 months. That there, left an uneasy feeling with me. I thought when speaking with him, that this was a scam. I am also tempted to ignore it all.
I am so grateful to my son who found this website. I may just enlist the help of Oscar to handle this for us. The image originally came from Google images on the other blog. I often get my own images from Google or Bing. This needs to stop! I am trying to alert the media to all of this as well. I think others need to be informed of what is going on and that this site is here to help us.
Back to work for me now. Scanning the forum for where to even begin with all of this. I am assuming a response letter is required. If anyone can direct me to the "start", it would be very much appreciated.
-
more importantly you need to STOP getting images from google or bing..or anywhere else for that matter. (unless you create them or purchase them)
I would refrain from contacting MF again, and I certainly would not give them any info..
-
joee,
There are lots of suggestions for how to proceed on this website. I have been on this site for 9 months and have never heard anyone complain about having hired Oscar. That's a process that will get you out of the loop and back to business.
Most importantly:
- Do not speak to them by phone or email
- All contact should be by registered letter, so you have your case documented in case it should ever escalate - it likely won't over one image.
- Admit nothing. The burden of proof should be on them.
- Have they proven to you that they own the images or have control over the copyright?
- Have they proven to you that the images are registered with the copyright office?
- Have they justified to you the price they are asking?
- If they can't even convince you, what makes you think they will be able to convince a judge?
Copyright trolls tend to prey on the fears of good people. Don't give in. Read the forum. You can choose to pursue this on your own or with Oscar or Matt's help. In any case, it should cost you far less than what they ask.
-
Yes have definitely learned a lesson about getting images from Google or Bing! Never again.
-
Thank you Stinger!
I did contact them by phone and email. However I did say that I wasn't sure how the image ended up on our blog that if it just showed up, on linking or if we actually added it. I also stated that we normally do not use images for this reason specifically, unless they are our own. However I am still not sure how the image ended up on our blog nor did I even realize it existed. When emailing Geoffrey, I did say that it was a link to another blog.
He stated that they had to pay the artist, so basically I have to pay up.
I received the Notice of Copyright Infringement that the others have stated receiving, with the screen shot and of course the bill of $2540. What I find interesting and perhaps is irrelevant, is that I am being billed, retroactively for an image until 12/06/12 and the image was removed 11/26/12.
I am not contacting them further nor do I intend to send in our company records.
I was reading another post where they discussed spiders and bots on their website and were suspicious if this is how the image was found. Well in the past month or so, our blog has been hit by spiders and bots with links back to spam sites. Wondering if this is how it was discovered.
I am a bit anxious because the letter states that I have to pay up in 10 days. Not sure if I don't if something worse will happen. The letter is dated 11/22/12 and I was out of town and received it on Monday.
I am new to all of this. UGH! A lot to learn!
-
Don't sweat the "deadline" date, it's part of their fear tactics, Stinger give good advice and is spot on on all points. Yes this is a time suck and there is plenty to learn, just keep in mind the positive side to all of this..you'll get an education, hang out with great people, and maybe even be able to help others going forward..not to mention the beating back of dirt bag copyright trolls..
-
They want $2500 for two months of an image that may have been hotlinked from another blog? Unless that image used diamonds for pixels, there is no way that is even close to reasonable.
At this juncture you either hire Oscar and be done with it, or you research this site and refuse to pay any money until they document other examples of images that have sold for this rate. Since it is MF, there is a good chance the copyright is registered, but I would insist on getting proof of registration and a copy of their exclusive agreement with the photographer. I would do all this under the guise of evaluating their claim (while not admitting guilt).
-
and if they do supply registration, keep in mind they just lost a big case where the registration was thrown out as useless...
-
So the update is that I received a phone message out of the blue from Geoffrey Beal yesterday, stating that they have reduced my fee to $500. Not good enough. Unless it is reduced to $0, I will be contacting Oscar and he can add this to the list of lost cases to go along with the $6 million dollar case.
-
So the update is that I received a phone message out of the blue from Geoffrey Beal yesterday, stating that they have reduced my fee to $500. Not good enough. Unless it is reduced to $0, I will be contacting Oscar and he can add this to the list of lost cases to go along with the $6 million dollar case.
Further proof that even Masterfile themselves know full well the image is worth next to nothing..stand your ground..and i wouldn't take any calls from them, but do indeed keep the messages, just in case it gets out of hand..
-
When emailing Geoffrey, I did say that it was a link to another blog.
He stated that they had to pay the artist, so basically I have to pay up.
If the image displayed at your blog but only because it was a link to an image hosted on someone elses server, you need to read my response to Getty:
http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/getty-images-letter-forum/recieved-a-demand-letter-today-what-do-you-think-of-my-response/msg9271/#msg9271
The part of particular relevance to you starts with "second" and I'll requote here:
Second: I have read over both the 2006 Ruling regarding PERFECT 10, Plaintiff, v. GOOGLE, INC., et al., Defendants from "United States District Court, C.D. California" and that regarding Perfect 10, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., et al. 487 F.3d 701, No. 06-55405 (9th Cir., May 16, 2007). I note that DMCA is mentioned and discussed by the District court in footnote 10 of the District Court ruling where they say,
"Google also contends that it qualifies for protection under each of the four DMCA safe harbors, 17 U.S.C. § 512(a)-(d). In light of the ensuing analysis concluding that Google is neither vicariously nor contributorily liable, it is unnecessary for the Court to deal with the DMCA issues."
The plain meaning of the text indicates that any protection that might have been afforded Google by the existence of DMCA was irrelevant the courts ruling because Google had not violated any of the copyright holders rights under copyright. I have not copied or displayed "Catalog Image No eb2511-001" as those terms are defined by US copyright law So, whether Google, Amazon or I are or are not protected by DMAC in the event that we might inadvertently violate someone's copyright would seem irrelevant. I'm puzzled that you brought your opinion about the applicability of DMAC up.
I would now like to point out that in my first letter I also brought up the issue of fair use. In the event that GettyImages might believe contrary to court rulings that including html instructions to an image at a third party site constituted infringing use under US copyright law, my particular use would in any case fall under fair use for reasons I mentioned in my first email to you. You have not address this point.
Because you have so far stated you do not consider the matter closed, I believe must request information from GettyImages. While continuing to maintain that I have neither copied nor displayed "Catalog Image No eb2511-001" as those words are defined by US copyright law, I request the following information regarding GettyImages "Catalog Image No eb2511-001" required to ascertain whether GettyImages has standing to pursue any claim or negotiate any settlement and to assess whether the suggested amount of the settlement would be reasonable.
My specific requests are below:
1) Please provide me with proof that the GettyImages "Catalog Image No eb2511-001" has been registered at the US copyright office or copyright office in any country either individually or as part of a collection, including any collection name, registration numbers, dates of registrations, renewals of registrations, names of copyright holders and any and all records indicating the copyright ownership may have transferred to any new owner and on which dates copyright ownership transfer may have occurred. Your Nov. 4th letter indicates that the photographer was "Mother-Daughter Press". I believe such items should be easily accessible in files GettyImages maintains for the image in question; your obtaining and providing these should be little more than a clerical matter.
2) Please provide me documentation that Getty Images now holds and has held the exclusive license this image spanning whatever time period you believe is relevant to your allegation of a copyright violation related to the image discussed in your first letter to me. I believe such items should be easily accessible in files GettyImages maintains for the image in question; your obtaining and providing these should be little more than a clerical matter.
3) Please explain your basis for requesting $875 for whatever use you infraction you allege with regard to this image.
I believe there is reason to doubt Getty images holds an exclusive right to license images, and also suspect the settlement demand is excessive in light of a number of factors including, but not limited to the following:
a) A digital copy of what appears to be the image in question is available free of charge by visiting ("Mother-Daughter Press & Gay Bumgarner Images" ( i. e. http://www.gaybumgarner.com/) , searching for "cardinals", clicking the image itself and then clicking "download" . The Mother-Daughter Press & Gay Bumgarner Images" website appears to be owned and operated by the party listed as "photographer" of your "Catalog Image No eb2511-001" and the 57.5 kb available for free is larger than the 14kb copy hosted at the third party site I linked. Absolutely no usages restrictions are indicated when that digital image is downloaded. (See attachment 1 below.)
b) A digital copy of what appears to be the image in question can be downloaded for free accessing it through photoshelter.com's user interface. Photoshelter.com lists the image as "PhotoShelter ID: I0000NJj3T3XcwKU" (See http://www.photoshelter.com/lbx/lbx-img-show?L_ID=L0000f7CHJUlwcGk&_bqG=0&_bqH=eJxLjMot9wh1D0izLI3wzQgNdPKrKgxPNM02S_G0MrIyMrWy8on3dLH1MQCCNHNnD6_QnPJk92w1H8_4YP.gEFsg7Rzi6esKE4h38QyydQx2BvF9PN09Qpz8I7AaUFCQbmtkCgC88CZL&LI_ID=LI000.2F242ES7zc )
c) Much lower costs licenses permitting web display of larger higher versions of this image are available through photoshelter.com (see attachments 2 below.)
I believe that since GettyImages has already presented me with a demand letter for $875, providing records and an explanation of the basis for demanding $875 along with records documenting who owns the copyright and your companies exclusive right to license the image should amount to little more than a clerical matter.
I close by noting that it remains my position that there has been no violation of the copyright holders rights to copy or display this image in the matter you described in your Nov. 24, 2011 letter.
Sincerely,
Lucia Liljegren
In the US, the 9th circuit court ruled that hyperlinking is NOT copyright violation. Whether Masterfile "has to" pay their photographer is irrelevant. None of the other circuit courts have ruled on the issue. But given the fact that this is the highest court ruling to date,
1) If you are in the 9th circuit masterfile would have to be nuts to go after you for a hyperlink ruling hoping to get the SCOTUS wold overrule the 9th and
2) If you live in another circuit, they would have to be nuts to hope one of the other circuit courts would rule in their favor on this.
Get a copy of the two Perfect 10 rulings, read, and take a big sigh of relieve. (Well... provided you are in the US.)
-
(I also remove the image from m blog media library)
Hmm... if it was in your blog media library, you may have made and displayed a copy. If this continues, you will need to discover whether your blog displayed an image hosted on your server or an image hosted on someone else's server. That is key. If the image is displayed as a "link to another blog" that's legally different from an image displayed from a link to your own server (or some server region under your own control.)
-
I have never heard of Masterfile going down to $500 so quickly, so I suspect they know they have a weak case against you.
-
I have never heard of Masterfile going down to $500 so quickly, so I suspect they know they have a weak case against you.
Or they are hoping that by lowering it to 500.00 Oscar won't get involved...I'm sure they are still a bit sore from the last whipping! 8)
-
Yes, Oscar did put a whipping on them didn't he? Well maybe this will help sooth MasterFails pain.
(http://i45.tinypic.com/fldkdk.jpg)
I have never heard of Masterfile going down to $500 so quickly, so I suspect they know they have a weak case against you.
Or they are hoping that by lowering itto 500.00 Oscar won't get involved...I'm sure they are still a bit sore from the last whipping! 8)
-
You all are just terrific! I can't believe the amount of support you receive in this forum. Amazing! I should restate my previous statement. "I removed all pictures from my media library" I have no idea if this particular one was included. I just deleted the whole entire library after this event. I am not giving in to this!
-
It's remarkable how quick the claim jumped from $2500 to $500. This is further evidence that the ELI site is closely followed by the coalition of trolls. Once they realize that you are on to them, it seems they are willing to suddenly offer an 80% discount to see if they can squeeze any juice out of their lemon.
It's also further validation that getting loud, being active, and staying unafraid to name, names is the best way to fight these monkeys.
-
Agreed Jerry, this also should show that these trolls know that these images are not worth anything close to what they are asking for. Imaging how long a store would stay in business if you were told that widget A is $2500 and you complain that you didn’t think it was worth that and to prove to me it's worth it and the salesman turns around and says “Okay, how about $500.
If you would be willing to share these letters I would like to add them to my packet of information I have on the trolls making my case they are practicing “Legalized Extortion” or if not here on the forums could you e-mail them to me and I will redact all of your personal information
-
joee --
Ahh! That clarifies.
Well... if you only hotlinked, you own zero. Nothing. Nada. At least according to precedent in the 9th circuit.
Admittedly, they could potentially hope to a different circuit court to disagree with the 9th (it's been known to happen!). They could hope to get the Supreme Court to rule differently from the 9th circuit. But there is no way they are going to pick you to try to fight a case involving 1 image to the US Supreme Court -- especially since they might find Google jumping in to file amicus briefs on your behalf!
Your only potential worry is if you have any doubt that you might have hosted the image on your server, and it turns out you did host it on the server, they could potentially have evidence you did so. If they went to court, they would need this evidence. But the screenshot of web pages they typically include in their extortion letter is not evidence to rebut your statement that you hotlinked. At a minimum, they would need to supply *html*.
As far as I am aware, Getty has not supplied html of those pages to anyone who has discussed the issue at this forum.
-
For what it's worth, from the get-go in response to my first letter from Getty, I requested html verification.
The same request went to copyright troll and collection agent Timothy B. McCormack and his paralegal Ashanti A. Taylor when they tripled Getty's original "settlement demand."
Both Getty and McCormack refused to address html verification, which is just one of the many points I will make in a declaratory judgment should one of these copyright trolling goons ever contact me again.
-
For what it's worth, from the get-go in response to my first letter from Getty, I requested html verification.
The same request went to copyright troll and collection agent Timothy B. McCormack and his paralegal Ashanti A. Taylor when they tripled Getty's original "settlement demand."
Both Getty and McCormack refused to address html verification, which is just one of the many points I will make in a declaratory judgment should one of these copyright trolling goons ever contact me again.
Here ya go Mulligan
http://www.scribd.com/doc/104557879/Getty-Images-Attorney-General-Complaint-13
I don't know the outcome of this, bu t we can probaly find out without to much effort...
-
I will look into this and find out what I can as I was not aware of this and I like what Avepoint did. I like it a lot, give me ideas (insert evil grin emoticon here)
For what it's worth, from the get-go in response to my first letter from Getty, I requested html verification.
The same request went to copyright troll and collection agent Timothy B. McCormack and his paralegal Ashanti A. Taylor when they tripled Getty's original "settlement demand."
Both Getty and McCormack refused to address html verification, which is just one of the many points I will make in a declaratory judgment should one of these copyright trolling goons ever contact me again.
Here ya go Mulligan
http://www.scribd.com/doc/104557879/Getty-Images-Attorney-General-Complaint-13
I don't know the outcome of this, bu t we can probaly find out without to much effort...
-
Robert, thanks. I recall reading that when you or Matt first added it to the ELI collection. I would be interested in knowing the outcome myself.
I've turned to the declaratory judgment option after reading how successful the folks at Tabberone.com have been using that strategy to fend off large companies that have tried to stop their eBay auctions. You can read a sample of the suit they filed that caused Disney (!) to capitulate at:
http://www.tabberone.com/Trademarks/DisneyLawsuit/ourlawsuit/complaint.html
The entire story of Tabberone vs Disney is at
http://www.tabberone.com/Trademarks/DisneyLawsuit/DisneyLawsuit.shtml
Fascinating reading at both urls.
Greg, you'll love reading the above. :)
-
I have read those and actually keep a link to it in my folder of cases I like and can use in my fight. I recommend it to everyone, thanks for sharing the link Mulligan!
Robert, thanks. I recall reading that when you or Matt first added it to the ELI collection. I would be interested in knowing the outcome myself.
I've turned to the declaratory judgment option after reading how successful the folks at Tabberone.com have been using that strategy to fend off large companies that have tried to stop their eBay auctions. You can read a sample of the suit they filed that caused Disney (!) to capitulate at:
http://www.tabberone.com/Trademarks/DisneyLawsuit/ourlawsuit/complaint.html
The entire story of Tabberone vs Disney is at
http://www.tabberone.com/Trademarks/DisneyLawsuit/DisneyLawsuit.shtml
Fascinating reading at both urls.
Greg, you'll love reading the above. :)
-
I would imagine the avepoint stuff would be in Pacer....Greg if you don't get it I'll go for a look tomorrow...been trying to stay away from pace..I tend to wander to much in there and it gets costly...
-
Looks like Avepoint dropped the case, don't know why. That's the part that always bugs me; I wish it would state the reason so I could know if Getty settled with them out of court or what.
http://www.scribd.com/my_document_collections/4041517
Thanks Robert, it was an easy find in PACER. I was uploading to SCRIBD when you replied. I know what you mean, you type in what you are looking for and you get other hits that look interesting, $0.10 a page can add up fast considering the size of some of these documents. Got to love PACER though....just sayin :)
I would imagine the avepoint stuff would be in Pacer....Greg if you don't get it I'll go for a look tomorrow...been trying to stay away from pace..I tend to wander to much in there and it gets costly...
-
Do I vaguely recall Oscar mentioning last year that he heard that Getty had settled out of court on this matter, but that he didn't know the details?
Edit: The Mulligan Memory is not totally brain dead after all! On doing a little backtracking I found Oscar's comment made on November 5, 2011, and here it is...
This lawsuit is interesting and something I have discussed on this forum previously. It is a declaratory judgment action asking the court to find that the plaintiff's use of the image is NOT an infringement of Getty's copyright. Normally this type of action is brought by a counterclaim in a copyright infringement suit, but it can be used offensively as this one is. One example of this type of case which we have discussed extensively here is Bernina v. imageline where Bernina successfully sued to have a court state that they did not infringe on Imageline's copyrights. I have emailed the plaintiff's lawyer in this case to get information on what happened in the case. The court file indicates it was dismissed voluntarily by the plaintiff on 11-2-11 before Getty even answered which is usually an indication of a settlement. I have long looked for but never found a client willing to pay the $350 to file a federal lawsuit plus legal fees who also had a valid license or claim over the images.
I hope that there isn't too tight a confidentiality agreement on any settlement so that the lawyer can pass on some info (which I can then pass on to this forum)
... found in the thread at http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/getty-images-letter-forum/avepoint-inc-v-getty-images/msg3602/#msg3602
End Edit
The suit was filed on 9/6/11 and dismissed on 11/2/2011. So something happened very quickly, and I'd put my money on Getty forking over some money to get a tight confidentiality agreement.
If I ever have to go the declaratory judgment route with Getty and that copyright troll and collection agent Timothy B. McCormack and his paralegal Ashanti A. Taylor of Seattle, you can be sure when they come asking to make this suit go away that I'm going to request my $350 back for having to file, $830 for Getty's original demand, $2400 for McCormack's absurd increased demand, and $29,500 for 100 billable hours at $295 an hour for per se research and amateur lawyering.
By the way, if they wanted a signed confidentiality agreement, too, that'll cost an extra $1,000,000.
For me, making the whole thing public would be the most important part of giving these goons a taste of what they've been doing for far too many years to so many innocent people. There isn't enough money in the entire U.S., in my opinion, to make up for the angst, nervous worry, anxiety, and God knows what other levels of horrible stress these trolls cause to fellow human beings over bullshit thumbnail images that they don't even in most cases have a legal right to demand money for.
Boy, even after this much time I can still stoke up an angry fire over the wrongness of what these people are getting away with their nasty schemes.
-
Well said, Mulligan.